Abstract

Current Web technology allows governments to share with the public a variety
of information in unlimited quantities on demand. Technology is also available
to allow citizens to bring issues of concern to the attention of local,
regional and national governments. However, exploiting these capabilities
within government systems is a challenge that encompasses environmental,
policy, legal, and cultural issues. Establishing effective eGovernment requires
openness, transparency, collaboration and skill in taking advantage of the
capabilities of the World Wide Web. The rich potential for two-way dialogue
between citizens and government creates a need for global leadership. The W3C
has an opportunity to provide guidance in support of eGovernment objectives by
promoting existing open Web standards and noting the challenges external to the
Web and technology. There is also role for the W3C to facilitate the
development and vetting of new open Web standards needed by governments in
context.

This document is an attempt to describe, but not yet solve, the variety of
issues and challenges faced by governments in their efforts to apply
21st century capabilities to eGovernment initiatives. Detail and
useful examples of existing, applicable open Web standards are provided. Where
government needs in the development of eGovernment services are not currently
met by existing standards, those gaps are noted.

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C
publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in
the W3C technical reports index at
http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This is a public Interest Group Note produced by the eGovernment Interest Group, which is
part of the eGovernment Activity.
This publication as an Interest Group Note represents the culmination of the
first year of group work. The contents of this document may be subject to
further iteration and development. It incorporates comments received since the
publication of a draft of this document released on 10 March 2009.
Please send further comments to public-egov-ig@w3.org (with public
archive).

Publication as an Interest Group Note does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted
by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
other than work in progress.

1. Introduction

Governments have been striving since the late 1990's to find better ways to
connect with their constituents via the Web. By putting government information
online, and making it easily findable, readily available, accessible,
understandable, and usable, people can now interact with their government in
ways never before imagined.

This concept is dubbed "electronic government", or eGovernment. The promise
of eGovernment allows citizens to access government information and services on
their terms. Sharing government data and information with the public provides
openness and transparency with citizens, and can improve operations within and
between governments.

Unfortunately, effective eGovernment has not been easy to accomplish, given
the unique challenges that governments face in collecting, managing, and making
information and services available electronically. These challenges include
outdated policies, budgetary and personnel constraints, and a slow-moving,
bureaucratic culture. Web 2.0 and social media have only added to these
challenges, and governments have been slow to adjust to these new paradigms of
openness, interaction, and influence. A further challenge is the proliferation
of mobile devices, where and when they are an access point to government
services and also where and when they are the only access point available to
constituents given the lack of adequate physical infrastructure. Lastly, the
issue of accessibility, where data and Web pages and services are available or
not to those with disabilities further compounds the challenges of
eGovernment.

We are facing many questions now, such as how can governments leverage Web
2.0 tools without violating existing laws, regulations, and policies? How can
governments ensure the authenticity of their information when it is opened for
public use? What is the best way to include electronic communications into the
"official record"? How can new technologies be integrated into legacy systems?
How do we effectively reach all citizens, including those who access the Web
via mobile devices, those with disabilities, or those without any access to the
Web?

These questions are not easy to answer. The W3C eGovernment Interest Group
(eGov IG) offers this Note to help governments formulate their eGovernment
vision. This paper describes, but does not yet solve, many of the issues and
challenges faced by governments. The use cases and explanations focus on
current technical standards, and provide context for the challenges and issues
we must overcome.

Background

Governments have strived for over a decade to provide more information and
services to their constituents including the public, businesses, and other
governments. Through their efforts there have been struggles given policy,
resources, technology, capability, and other issues which have provided
significant challenges and roadblocks to conceptualizing or achieving the
desired goals and results. The explosion and development of the Web, related
technologies, and practices have offered governments perhaps the best
opportunity to realize their goals in providing information and services while
meeting the demand for increasingly more contribution and interaction.

The idea of government use of the Web and related technologies was born in
the late 1990's and culminated in early 2000 as an extension of everything "e".
At the time, the Web was in its infancy and still very much acting and
facilitating a wild-wild west frontier. eCommerce, eKnowledge, B2B, B2C,
eService and many other terms floated around and sought to be defined to enable
and leverage the promise of the Web. Terms were publicized and communicated in
the hopes of creating interest and ultimately business via this new and
exciting medium. During this period, governments realized there were also
opportunities internal to their organization and activities seeking the same
efficiencies and approaches used by others to improve and make electronically
available information and services. This concept and opportunity was dubbed
"electronic government" or eGovernment, eGov for short.

The promise of eGovernment then and continuing now offers governments the
opportunity to open their doors to citizens, helping expose the secrecy of
government, opening doors to the inner workings while aiding understanding and
explanation, informing and making available large quantities and types of
information for use, interest, and comprehension, delivering services where and
when and at times citizens and constituents need them, and creating internal
and external operating efficiencies that improve the operations and
interchanges within and between governments.

The promise, progress, and efforts have been stymied given the many unique
needs, requirements, and challenges that governments face in collecting,
managing, and making available information and services. The unique issues
include policies which control, at times in specific and procedural detail, how
information must be handled, who has access, and if or not it can be
distributed, and if it can, when. Other issues relate to budgetary and
personnel resources that prohibit innovation, ability and execution of
electronic government related activities. Governments are challenged to always
do more with less being mindful of spending tax income. Governments are
challenged in recruiting and retaining the qualified and skilled resources
needed to develop innovative applications and approaches. Governments are
challenged with being able to adeptly and quickly maneuver and adjust policies
and procedures to facilitate a forward direction in electronic government.

Another challenge comes from the government and its role and contribution to
society. Governments have looked to, used, and implemented technologies well
after technologies and related approaches have been tested and proven in
private industry. Governments, who are the champions of innovation and at times
the financial resource for the private sector, cannot readily adapt to being an
innovator which places them far behind what is viewed as the norm and current
technological environment.

The host of issues cited and many more create challenges for governments
considering or moving forward with electronic government.

The new ideas, applications, and promises of the so called Web 2.0 have only
furthered and made more complex the issues and challenges that governments face
in achieving the promises of electronic government. Web 2.0 and particularly
social media, social networking, and the new paradigms of openness,
interaction, and influence have confounded governments as to how they can take
advantage of Web 2.0 and meet the demands of their constituencies. Many
questions have been brought forth and with only partial answers to some. How
can policies, practices, and laws be amended to allow for electronic
participation? How can operations be altered to operate on and in real time to
leverage the interest and desired level of participation? How can governments
ensure the authority and primary nature of the information is maintained? What
can and is a part of the official record of government and its activity? Can
electronically derived and received comments be considered part of the official
record? How are they responded to or addressed? How can governments use and
incorporate new technologies within their older systems and infrastructure? Are
there way to expose data from the older systems and infrastructures via the
Web?

Additional issues and challenges come forth on who and what percentage of
their constituencies have access to the Web, electronic tools and applications
which would allow for the provision of information and service, the
interaction, and the contribution. How and what must governments do to ensure
the majority have access to the information and services now available from the
fruits of their labor? The issue of access confounds and challenges both
developed and developing countries and regions of the World. The wide adoption
of mobile devices has furthered even greater complexity to the access issue.
The citizens of some countries and regions (Japan, India, Latin America) have
adopted mobile devices as their primary interface to the Web and are demanding
more and more mobile access to government information, service, and
interaction. For many in developing countries, mobile delivery and retrieval
are their only opportunity and method for access given the lack of adequate
telecommunications and networking infrastructures needed to connect and
communicate by other means.

The further challenge and complexity of the access issue comes from cost.
Computers and connection points are still economically out of range for a
majority of people around the world. Cost and the lack of infrastructure limit
the opportunities for many and their related governments in achieving and
benefiting from the promise of electronic government.

One last challenge to document, although not in any way seeking to be
conclusive of all the issues and hurdles that exist, is the understanding and
definition of what the openness and transparency movement and demand is. How do
or should different governments define or consider openness and transparency?
How does each address the structure of government and cultural norms? Many of
these questions will take considerable time to find their answers and
explanations. Consensus of and on the answers are not yet clear nor do
governments yet fully understand the impact and opportunity and how to
operationally incorporate and accommodate.

Once the questions are answered, policies evaluated, and challenges are met,
technical standards and particularly standards related to open source, data,
and Web standards can aid governments and others with achieving and realizing
the promise and benefits of electronic government.

Standards work across many groups, governments, and organizations continues
to aid governments. Many have committed time and resources to develop XML,
Authentication, and other data standards to promote and aid information to be
free flowing and available. Others have sought to address and understand how to
aid in developing standards for interoperability and interchange of data while
others have sought to create or identify Web presentation layer, application,
and browser based standards to aid governments in their efforts.

The W3C eGovernment Interest Group (eGov IG) seeks and aspires to become a
critical link in assisting governments with the promise of electronic
government. The Interest Group realizes that one group, government, nor
organization needs to own or create everything needed to assist governments.
Innovations, new opportunities, and work are occurring worldwide creating
example applications, creating and vetting new standards, manipulating or
customizing existing standards, and experimenting with and addressing the
policy and procedural challenges seeking solutions to these and many of the
other existing challenges and issues.

The eGov IG, therefore, acts as the validation and aggregation point of the
representative use cases, standards, approaches, and opportunities while being
the connector and enabler in the electronic government space. The IG efforts
and products will be freely available and adoptable by governments
worldwide.

Charter and Activities

The eGov IG focuses its efforts to fill a distinct gap in the Web and
technology standards space focusing on the unique and diverse needs and issues
that governments throughout the developed and developing World face in enabling
electronic service and information delivery and providing opportunities for
discovery, interaction and participation.

The eGov IG is in its first year of existence and is through this Note, an
issues paper, and future work attempting to meet and execute its charter [EGOVIG] and mission for the W3C and specifically for serving
its purpose and intent to assist governments throughout the World in realizing
the promise of electronic government.

The IG is designed as a forum to support researchers, developers, solution
providers, and users of government services that use the Web as the delivery
channel. The Interest Group uses email discussions, scheduled IRC topic chats
and other collaborative tools as a forum to enable broader collaboration across
eGov practitioners.

The following activities are in the scope of the eGov IG and three interest
areas have been formed to achieve the Group's mission:

Usage of Web Standards

Gather information about the areas where best practice guidelines are
needed: best practices will be drawn from the successes (and failures) of
efforts at opening, sharing, and re-using knowledge about the use of standards
and specifications by government applications that could be collected into a
set of best practices with the intent of identifying productive technical paths
toward better public services.

Provide input to help governments comply with standards: for
example, standards bodies could provide training and outreach materials on best
practices and tools, and improve the packaging and promotion of existing
material. The work of W3C's Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI) [WAI] is an example of a successful
education and outreach program that helps governments achieve compliance
goals.

Transparency and Participation

Identify ways to improve government transparency and openness:
identify any gaps to be filled in creating a complete suite of standards to
enable open government information and ease the goal of linkable Public Sector
Information.

Identify ways to increase citizenship participation: recognize new
channels, ways to get the information to the citizens where the citizens are
looking for it, and make better use of tools as means to increase citizenry
awareness and participation while supporting champions, i.e. acknowledge and
help active citizens and public servants.

Identify ways to increase citizens and businesses use of eGovernment
services: get information on benefits of Web use for government services,
identify main factors that are important for people and businesses to use
eGovernment services such as time and money savings, simplicity, and identify
ways to improve them.

Seamless Integration of Data

Identify how to advance the state-of-the-art in data integration
strategies: identify ways for governments and computer science researchers
to continue working together to advance the state-of-the-art in data
integration and build useful, deployable proof-of-concept demos that use actual
government information and demonstrate real benefit from linked data
integration. These proof-of-concept tools ought to be targeted to applications
that will show real improvement in areas that elected officials, government
officers and citizens actually need. This area would include addressing the
needs of business cases through the use of XML, SOA, and Semantic Web
technologies.

Relationships and Collaborations

The eGov IG is currently working with, forming relationships, or
collaborating with governments and other organizations (The World Bank, EC, OECD,
OAS, ICA,
CEN and OASIS).
Activities throughout the World on the issues, challenges, and work required to
aid governments in achieving the eGovernment vision is consistently recognized
by the eGov IG and its partners.

2. Definitions

Description terms are used to highlight and describe the various types of
interaction points and relationships that governments have to their various
constituencies. A few of the major and known terms are below:

G2C: Government to Citizen: Governments providing Web based
information and services to their public constituencies.

G2B: Government to Business: Governments providing Web based
information and services to companies and others in the private sector
(Financial, Retail, as examples)

G2G: Government to Government: Connections and communications
between, state, local, regional, territories, Federal depending on Country
and political structure.

C2G: Citizen to Government: A new term resulting from the demand for more
opportunities of participation and interaction

B2G: Business-to-Government: Companies and other organizations
supply information requested or required by government agencies for
regulatory or other purposes.

3. Trends and Modalities of the Web and the Information
Consumer

The Web working groups are currently processing and addressing several
trends and activities requiring evolution of tools, thoughts, and strategies.
Five key trend areas must be accounted for and noted in strategies being
discussed, developed, and implemented:

Connected: User and community connectivity resulting in
content/information available via APIs and desktops (without
browsers) and content/information that centers on online communities and is
distributed across many sites, platforms, and repositories. Content and
information should be able to be shared, manipulated, and packaged as the
user or groups of users see fit honoring all rights and restrictions and
where they interact and spend their time.

On the Go: Content/information availability via mobile devices [MWI] that takes into account a variety of delivery methods
and accepted practices, industry standards and applications.

Accessible: Content that conforms to W3C accessibility guidelines [WAI-GUIDES] so that all people, including people
with disabilities and senior citizens, can find the same information and
perform the same functions as other users. Information architectures and
navigation are relevant to and usable by a diverse worldwide audience.

Readily available: Content and information that are
available and discoverable; searchable via quick and simple applications;
complete and relevant to promote an experiential gain of knowledge and
growth; and is presented to allow programmatic combinations (mash-ups) for
a hyper-personalized experience.

Globalization is now a major factor throughout the World. Localization is
still critically important, however, all content and interaction crosses
continents and oceans despite the original intent. With the advent of
globalization, one can no longer say that an organization can focus only on a
particular geographic area. All organizations must recognize that the content,
actions, and communications are available, reviewed, watched, and potentially
used by other information consumers around the globe. This global reach has
furthered the concept of communities where people from a variety of geographic
regions can meet, interact, share, and consume information and services. People
want to be connected in ways that are tailored and customized to how and where
they want to meet, interact, share, and consume. This "on demand and
customized" desire for information, services, and interaction, requires the
recognition that all or most participants must be available via mobile devices
and applications. In today's hyper busy world with "on demand" expectations,
the concept of "on the go" becomes a necessary part of daily work life. The
activity, connectivity, and growth of information and services on the Web has
caused exponential growth of information in volumes requiring more complex and
faster ways to access, mine, categorize, and deliver.

These new demands and requirements are currently pushing technological
limits and are resulting in very complex systems comprised of many different
parts and interactions both on a consumer and systems level. Therefore, the
strategies must be able to account for the dynamism that is occurring today and
ensure that tomorrow's demands, requirements, and trends can be easily met in a
global audience construct.

These five key trends with the recognition that the Web space is both local
and global must result in governments thinking and defining their role in the
context of modalities.

Within the key trends there are three modalities that exist for governments'
use of the Web by governments:

to deliver public services, to citizens,businesses, and other governments
and levels of government (providing information or transactional
services)

to engage with citizens through the use of social media on government Web
sites or through engagement with online communities elsewhere on the
Web.

as infrastructure, to enable others to retrieve and manipulate government
provided data.

These modalities can be loosely characterized as provide,
engage and enable. The extent to which a
government chooses to fulfill any or all of these roles on the Web is a
socio-political question, tightly connected to levels of public funding and the
more general development of public services.

A number of general observations can be made when characterizing
governments' current use of the Web. While increasingly cognizant of the
opportunities afforded by social media, typically governments are still
operating a broadcasting paradigm. Web sites are a vehicle for mass
communication and for the delivery of transactional services. In this
environment statistics showing the scale of usage are celebrated as indicators
of success in themselves. The structure of a government Web estate is often
organizationally driven. This is problematic as the structures of government
continually change, resulting in significant disruption to the presentation of
government on the Web. Government departments can be surprisingly transient
entities. Transposed to namespaces and URIs this is quick sand on which to
build an essential information infrastructure using the Web.

To give an example of the consequences of this churn, governments have
difficulty maintaining persistent URIs even to documents. Increasing
volumes of official reports and documents are published on the Web alone making
the long term availability of those resources an important issue. In this
context 'link rot' is not just an inconvenience of the information consumer, it
undermines public accountability as documents cease to be available. Inability
to persist resources and manage URLs inhibits willingness to link between
government agencies. This is a loss for information consumers who want a
seamless government Web site experience and do not care which government agency
hosts the information they seek. Government departments need to deep link more
and with minimal risk consideration.

Firmly in the provide mode many governments have devised a channels strategy
for their Web estate. This has been developed primarily from a communications
perspective. What is more generally absent is a data strategy from a Web
engineering perspective. It is rare in government to think about Web site
development as the engineering of basic information infrastructure.

Underlying these issues is one of particular interest to the W3C as a
technology standards organization, not just about adoption and usage of its
standards, but about the understanding of them. As a supplier and provenance
source of information on the Web, governments have an important role to play.
There is potential for significant social and commercial innovation using
public sector information made available using the Web.

The reality is that not many officials responsible for commissioning or
managing government Web sites are familiar with the basic principles of the
Web‚ for example Architecture of the
World Wide Web [WEBARCH]. Unfortunately, lacking a
government context and being aimed at a more expert audience, the W3C
guidelines and specifications are almost impenetrable to many Web decision
makers in government.

4. eGovernment Issues

A number of eGovernment issues and challenges need to be managed by any
government working towards openness, participation, and collaboration. The
technical community who are creating, developing, and making available tools
and technologies that can assist governments also have challenges to overcome.
The eGov IG recognizes the need to document and publish the complexities of the
environment, the myriad of issues, ideas for solutions, and opportunities to
assist governments.

The eGov IG believes the following topics are the most pressing for
governments in the context of the current constituency demands and the trends
related to Web 2.0. transparency, and participation. Potential future work of
the eGov IG will begin to structure, prioritize, and address many of the other
issues impacting eGovernment while continuing to mature those found below.

Participation and Engagement

What Is Participation and Engagement?

In an increasing number of developed countries the level of domestic
broadband access has reached and surpassed critical mass. The Web is the first
port of call for information and advice - from breaking news to fact finding
about an illness. Increasingly human relationships are being created and
sustained on the Web through social networking sites. Large numbers of people
are using social media tools to keep in touch with their friends and
colleagues. These are important trends that are opening new opportunities for
governments and citizens to interact. Increasingly the default means for
government to communicate its message and to provide public services is using
the Web.

Participation

The Web provides a transformative platform for the public sphere, the
process of social communication where opinions are expressed, synthesized and
coalesced. There are many types of public spheres operating across many
different platforms, including the traditional mass media of television, radio
and newspapers. The Web is transformative simply because it allows anyone to be
a publisher. This changes the power relationships in the public sphere in
profound ways. It affords political leaders new routes to power, crowd sourcing
both finance and campaign teams. It affords citizens new ways to have their
say. Either marginalized or extreme voices can now be heard making the public
sphere increasingly rich and diverse. In turn this changes the nature of
politics, news and journalism and how they contribute to the public sphere.
What is clear is that people's use of the Web is shifting the relationship
between the citizen and the state. The nature of these changes varies by
culture and system of government but the impact is being felt everywhere.

The growth of political blog
[BLOG] illustrates the Web's use for conversations about
the direction of public policy. Outside of traditional political processes,
campaign Web sites provide the means for people to group together to press for
political change. This may be through lobbying or by seeking elected office or
from new forms of campaign such as crowd sourcing a flash mob. And
communications to elected representatives, whether as part of a petition or an
individual message, the amount of correspondence has increased in many places
due to the access to the Internet. This is about using the Web for
participation, to shape, direct or change public policy.

Both politicians and political parties are increasingly using social
networking tools as part of their political campaigning with the most striking
example being the Obama campaign in the United States. Supporters who have
grown up with a candidate engaging in a two-way dialogue during the campaign
feel they have a strong stake in what that candidate does once they have been
elected. For example, there is evidence with the Obama administration that
supporters are insisting on maintaining the dialogue from the campaign into
office, "Holding
Obama-Biden Administration Accountable" [US-OBACCO]. This is the introduction of a new type of
check and balance into the political system, what some, such as William Dutton,
call the
fifth estate [FIFTH-ESTATE]. We see the
phenomenon elsewhere where online communities seek to enforce a degree of
accountability. Social network Facebook's response to pressure over changes to
the service's terms and conditions, which led to a return to
the original [FB-TOS] is an example of such community
power.

Others are using the disintermediation of traditional media to push forwards
transparency and democratic accountability. On the premise that in order to
participate effectively in the political process you need access to information
about what is happening, organizations like MySociety [UK-MYSOCIETY] in the UK and the Sunlight Foundation [US-SUN] in the United States have developed innovative
services that open up information from legislative and governmental decision
making processes.

Engagement

A government is a complex entity, consisting of many institutions that grow
and develop over time. People engage in conversations. Sometimes they do so
representing an institution. For government, the use of the Web for online
engagement means individual public servants engaging in online conversations,
in an official capacity.

Just as the Web enables anyone to be a publisher, it raises the possibility
of anyone as public servant to become a communicator and a representative of
government. Increasing numbers of public servants are blogging about their work
or discussing work related issues using micro-blogging
[MBLOG] tools. These activities are directed at engagement
rather than effecting political change.

The use of the Web for engagement is significant in that it opens up new
ways to talk to government but these conversations are complex because the
boundaries between participation and engagement are sometimes blurred. Some
contributors to a topic in an online discussion forum may be participating,
putting political points into the public sphere, while public servants may
simultaneously be engaging - openly gathering and presenting evidence or
discussing policy options. It is the role of the contributor that determines
whether they are participating or engaging, when such discussions take
place.

There are a number of different types of Web enabled engagement:

Policy related government to citizen interaction, public
employees using the Web to directly engage in dialogue with citizens about
issues of public policy, on behalf of a political administration. Typically
the government does this by allowing comments on proposals, in a similar
way to that in operation on many blogs. Blogging platforms are often used
to underpin these services.

Policy related engagement in citizen to citizen
conversations, policy makers directly engage in online dialogue
between citizens about matters of public policy, on other Web sites. This
may be to highlight evidence, explain aspects of public policy, correct
misleading statements, or to engage in open discussion about policy options
and priorities. Policy makers are beginning to come to online communities
and say "we want to solve this problem, how should we go about doing
that?".

Advice related government to citizen or business
interaction. This is about public employees using the Web to
directly engage with citizens or businesses about particularly problems or
issues that they may have, in a public conversion.

Advice related citizen to citizen interaction, people
talking to each other about public policy issues ("where should I send my
child to school?" "Is what I've been told by my doctor right?"). Government
involvement in such forums may add huge value, delivering expert advice to
groups who need it. Such engagement with citizens may be unwanted however -
people don't want the government in every part of their lives. The
tolerance for such engagement needs to be carefully ascertained. It will
vary from community to community and area to area.

What Public Policy Outcomes Are Related to Participation and
Engagement?

Governments generally operate in five spheres: social policy, economic
policy, security policy, regulatory and legal policy and international
relations. Some issues, such as the credit crunch or climate change cut across
these boundaries, requiring economic, social and regulatory action in a
coordinated multilateral way. People are using the Web to facilitate their
participation in each of these policy areas - all are matters of public
discourse and political debate.

In practice, the importance of the Web as a tool for engagement has come
most to the fore in the social policy arena - not least because this covers the
issues that most directly impinge on individuals' lives. There are wide
variations between states in how social policy is delivered - in some countries
the state is the direct provider of services such as health, in others such
services are delivered almost entirely by the third and private sector.
Attitudes and expectations from public services are changing in part because of
the experience people have from using online services and governments have
already started to evaluate
the impact, benefits and challenges of these new ways of interaction [US-SOCMED].

There are three areas of public policy outcome where online engagement can
play an important role.

Enabling Citizen Choice and Improving Public
Services

Encouraging citizens to discuss their impressions and experience of the
public services they use, potentially star rating those services, can
facilitates citizen choice and introduces a new incentive mechanism for
improving public services. For example, if parents are given a choice about
which state school to send their child to, they can make their selection based
on the views of parents with children already at that school.

In the UK, the government has launched
an online service called "NHS Choices" [UK-NHSC], which supports citizens to make a healthcare
provider choice from amongst various public healthcare providers. Those using
the services are encouraged to rate and comment on their experiences using a
particular provider. This is an example of government providing a forum for
citizen to citizen interaction, with a view to supporting choice and raises
quality of provision. A similar but independently service is provided by Patient Opinion [UK-PATIENTO].

Providing Advice and Support to Citizens to Achieve
Public Policy Outcomes

Citizens are helping each other in discussion forums in ways that achieve
public service outcomes. At the time of writing, many countries are in or about
to enter a recession. This is the first global economic crisis to happen in an
era of widespread availability of the internet and the use of social media
tools. After prolonged periods of relatively high and stable levels of
employment a significant number of people, many of them highly qualified and
skilled, will find themselves out of work, perhaps for a prolonged period of
time.

Governments are announcing various initiatives to help families cope with
the change in the economic climate, for example promising protection against
foreclosure. There is evidence that people are confused and fearful. It is
reasonable to anticipate that they will turn to online communities for help,
advice and support. In these forums public servants can add value by giving
advice and guidance about what support from the government is available or how
the system is supposed to work. This advice is instantly available, not only to
the intended recipient but also the wider community.

The incentive for government is to provide support that helps to achieve
wider public policy objectives, particularly in areas of social policy. Other
examples of relevant online communities for engagement by public servants
include parents providing support to each other with raising their children,
talking about childcare problems, illnesses or behavioral issues, through to
college students discussing issues to do with their studies, financing their
education or seeking work.

Changing Behaviors and Establishing New Social
Norms

Many of the issues confronting governments today for example changing the
pattern of energy consumption to combat climate change involve large numbers of
people changing their behavior in some way. To achieve this, new social norms
need to be fostered and established. It is insufficient simply to provide
information about the impact of individual's choices. That information needs to
be contextualized and humanized in the context of dialogues with people that
encourage and support the development of new social norms.

What Are the Main Benefits to Using the Web for
Participation and Engagement?

People trust those places and services that they themselves control or have
the impression of controlling. Engaging with people where they are means
interacting on their terms. Provided this is done authentically anecdotal
evidence suggests that people welcome the involvement of public servants in
many different online community environments. This presents a more human face
to government institutions, which is more approachable, more credible and more
likely to be listened to and valued.

Interestingly, those communities that governments would most like to engage
with and support, because of their alignment with public policy objectives
(such as parenting support groups) seem those most open to engagement by public
servants and welcoming of the opportunity to directly engage. For example,
members of NetMums [UK-NETMUMS] in the UK welcomed the chance to help shape aspects of
government policy for children and families and have pressed for advisors on
benefits and tax to interact in the discussion forums.

In the policy arena, engaging in discussion about policy options has
resulted in some remarkably mature and considered input. Instead of going
through a traditional consultation exercise, the Power of Information Task
Force in the UK issued its report "in beta" [UK-POIT] and allowed people to comment on it on a paragraph
by paragraph basis. Hundreds of comments were posted including points of
clarification from public servants. Open public discussions took place on all
key topics and some important new ideas were introduced and developed through
those discussions. The collaborative development of policy through public
conversations involving public servants and others around a shared evidence
base should lead to better public policy.

Collaboratively developed policy is more likely to be consensual and less
open to partisan attack or misrepresentation in the mass media.

How Can Participation and Engagement Be Achieved?

The explosion of site, services, and opportunities has created many
challenges for governments specific to the internal operations, policies,
procedures and most importantly culture and cultural norms and perceptions that
should be identified, managed and resolved. The following seeks to offer some
guidance to governments while raising questions and comments that should be
thought through and considered in achieving the goals of public participation
and engagement.

Access of Public Servants to Web Sites that Citizens Are
Using

Public servants need to be given access to the Web sites that citizens are
using in order for them to be able to engage. The “lock-down” culture that
exists in many government IT departments often restricts access to the more
interactive Web sites for security reasons. This badly hampers the effective
engagement with online communities by public servants. Many governments are
blocking employee access to Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, and others where
conversations occur, interaction is embraced, individuals align around similar
goals, issues, and interests, and participatory and engaged communities are
formed. Security issues, employee rights and misdeeds, and lack of familiarity
with the tools are impacts that governments must content with, however, in
taking time to do so limits the amount of participation, feedback, and
interaction from constituents.

Clear and Simple Rules for Public Servants

Governments need to set clear and simple rules for public servants to follow
so they can be confident about engaging online without risking their career.

Training, Support and Cultural Change

There needs to be training and support for public servants in the use of
appropriate tools and techniques to use the Web to engage, particularly for the
development of public policy. Engaging with online communities over the
development of public policy will involve significant culture change in
government. To achieve it will require clear leadership at senior levels. As
the use of the Web for engagement is so new in government there are few people
with both the practical knowledge and the seniority and experience to provide
this leadership.

Support Open Debates and Discussions

Many times citizens will self organize policy debates and discussions
outside of government Web site. Governments should take a effort to recognize
and point out forums that they are aware of on issues of concern. Governments
should be mindful of these independent venues, both by openly showing interest
in some of these external efforts.

Provide the Institutional Resources to Handle
Incoming Correspondence

One of the aspects of electronic communication is the often sharp increase
in electronic petitions and other electronic forms of correspondence.
Governments should recognize the importance in fielding the resources to
consider the messages. Also governments should use technology standards to help
ease the burden of communicating on the part of citizens and on government
civil servants. When possible, citizens should have access to a way to bundle
their communications so that they can decrease the noise perceived with a
deluge of the incoming messages.

Allow Comments on Policy Documents

Policy documents need to be presented in formats which allows for comment
and discussion in a granular way. Fragments within such documents need to be
directly addressable. In consultation documents for example, the relationship
between the questions for discussion and the proposals to which those questions
refer need to be made explicit. The RDFa
[RDFA-PRIMER] based ArgotConsultation
Consultation
[UK-ARGOTC] which was developed for the UK government is an example of the type of
technology required for publishing consultation documents in ways that enable
engagement.

Governments can also enable commenting on official documents by providing
reliable electronic citations, for example as a URL that points to an official or
authentic version of the document and make specific fragments of the document
addressable.

Promote Use of Lightweight Standards for Metadata and
Communication

Government can publish standards that it may already being used for internal
systems of data storage and communication. Government can also create easy,
cheap and quick methods of communication that make it possible for more people
to be heard by their government. And the standards should include ways to
classify or tag information correctly and in ways to allow tabulation and
closer consideration of issues. Those same standards can also be used by
everyone for their own system of publishing.

What Are the Main Issues with Using the Web for
Participation and Engagement?

Representation Boundaries

The boundaries are shifting between public and private, personal and
professional. This blurring of distinctions between individuals and their roles
gives rise to particular set of problems for public servants because
governments operate in a political environment. When an official posts a
message to a W3C email list or a social media group are they doing so as an
individual, or as a representative of the institution for which they work?
Services such as micro-blogs (e.g. Twitter or Identi.ca) that mix personal and
professional messages exacerbate this dilemma.

Do the participants of such communities expect to find public officials in
their community? Is this the state as friend, or is it an overbearing intrusion
into people's lives? How should public officials themselves engage -
anonymously, with a pseudonym or authentically as themselves? How can others be
sure the advice being given, for example about a tax matter, has come from a
public servant? The provenance not just of the information, but also of people,
starts to really matter.

Relationships

If a government department establishes a feed for new information using a
micro-blog tool, and people chose to consume that information by following that
channel, does the service provider "follow" in return? What does it mean to be
followed by a user named "@legislation" or "@parliament"? Should the service
provider only "follow" if they are willing to engage as well as broadcast?
Neither citizen nor service provider are clear about what community norms
should apply.

Ownership and Use of Third Party Services

While free for citizens to use, many of the social networking services have
been created on a commercial basis. It may be that an inappropriate reliance on
third party services develops. By participating in an online community is the
government endorsing it in some way? Does the implied endorsement stretch to
the availability of the service, data protection issues (which may be sensitive
if the service may be provided from a different jurisdiction) or security?

Who owns the social networks and in whose interests are they being operated?
If key public services are provided using social networking services (e.g.
advice to parents, tax guidance), to what extent should government seek to
control the services upon which it relies? The terms and conditions of the
service are clearly vitally important.

Several governments, including the US Federal Government have been
successful with negotiating agreements with a variety of third party services
which protects government information, meet the legal and policy needs of
government, while allowing government to be a participant in the communities
and tools offered by the third party services.

Inclusive Access to Information

How are the interests and rights of people with disabilities and people who
are not yet on the Internet protected? Many government, social networking and
community Web sites are not accessible to people with disabilities and older
people, even where required by policies or laws. While people with disabilities
use the web in ever-increasing numbers, they often encounter barriers to full
participation as both consumers and producers of information. And there are
other populations who do not yet use the Web at all. As governments pursue
strategies of engagement through the Web, they must be mindful of keeping
alternative channels of communications open for these citizens.

Challenges exist for both developed and developing countries and regions of
the World. The wide adoption of mobile devices has furthered even greater
complexity to the access issue. The citizens of some countries and regions
(Japan, India, and Latin America) have adopted mobile devices as their primary
interface to the Web and are demanding more mobile access to government
information, service, and interaction. For many constituents in developing
countries, mobile delivery and retrieval are the only opportunity and method
for access given the lack of needed telecommunications and networking
infrastructures. The cost of access is also an issue since computers and
connection points are still economically out of range for a majority of people
around the world. Cost and the lack of infrastructure limit the opportunities
for many constituents and their related governments to benefit from eGovernment
opportunities.

The eGov IG includes members of [WAI] Working Groups to
ensure inclusion of disability issues and with digital divide activists to
include the needs of those with low literacy and/or lack of technology
access.

Authoritative Sources

How does the government protect the authority of its information while
allowing the conversations and communities to grow and flourish?

Interoperability and Data Portability

Generally it is in governments' interests to support interoperable systems
based on open standards, yet many social networks have been designed to be
"walled gardens", locking people in to their service as much as they possibly
can. Should governments participate in Web sites that lock people in, not
allowing information consumers to move their data to another provider? How
would such a stance relate to competition policy? With walled gardens the
citizen has the inconvenience of multiple user accounts and login details as
does the public servant. Can this be overcome, for example by the wider use of
other de facto standards such as OpenID [OPENID]? Certain initiatives are currently ongoing to create
vocabularies that could be used to annotate and thus interlink data locked in
different systems. Examples include [FOAF] which becomes a de facto standard for describing
people and [SIOC] which is at the time of writing a W3C submission for annotating
discussions on the Web. Improvement would most likely to happen if these
were open standards development efforts happening . in transparent
fora/consortia and/or standards organizations.

Archiving Challenges

If public policy is being developed in distributed collaborative ways, what
are the public records and archival implications? How can the development of
policy created through participative Web based tools be captured for posterity?
The existing mechanisms for archiving “records of decisions” are poorly
suited for the capture of distributed and fragmented information created on the
Web.

Metrics

How can a government set clear measures and metrics to gage the success of
fairly new and innovative practices and projects?

Accessibility

Web accessibility is essential for equal opportunity. The Web is an
important medium for receiving information as well as providing information and
interacting with society. Therefore it is essential that the Web be accessible
in order to provide equal access and equal opportunity to citizens with
disabilities and older citizens. An accessible Web can also help citizens more
effectively interact with government.

Given that people with disabilities represent between ten and twenty percent
of the population of most countries, ensuring accessibility of government Web
sites is an important aspect of openness and transparency of government data.
This need has been made more explicit by the 2008 passage of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UN-ACC], which among other fundamental human rights includes
the right of access to information.

The Web is an opportunity for unprecedented access to information for people
with disabilities. That is, the accessibility barriers to print, audio, and
visual media can be much more easily overcome through Web technologies. The Web
is also an opportunity for unprecedented interaction for people with
disabilities.

For example, the act of completing a government form once required going to
a government office and completing the form on paper. That act presented
significant barriers for many people with disabilities, including getting to
the office, reading the form, and completing it in writing. When that same form
is also available on the Web in an accessible format, it is significantly
easier for many people to complete. Therefore, people with disabilities can
have more effective and efficient access to government interaction through
accessible Web sites - in some cases, where there was essentially no access to
them before.

An accessible Web expands opportunities for communication, interaction, and
employment for people with disabilities throughout governments.

Open Government Data

What is Open Government Data?

Public organizations produce, archive and distribute a wealth of information
(e.g. legal, financial, bibliographic) in their daily operations. This Public
Sector Information (PSI) is subject to certain laws and regulations (e.g.
stating how/when it must be published or how it's licensed) that vary from
country to country. Traditionally, PSI has been published in different
ways and formats, from the early paper days to the early Web days in which
information was being published online in whatever format was more convenient
for the government organization in charge of publishing it and according to the
normative at that time (e.g. the
European Directive [EU-PSID]).

Unfortunately, much PSI was and is still being published using proprietary
formats or in ways that create barriers of use for various interested parties.
Examples include device incompatibilities for those using mobile devices or
older hardware, the lack of information available to those using computers
without the required proprietary software, and accessibility barriers
experienced by people with disabilities.

Flourishing of Web applications and services using other types of
information on the Web that are provided in open raw formats, as well as
adapters built by third parties to reuse existing PSI on the Web, show that there is
demand and potential in publishing PSI offering unobstructed access to the raw
information.

For the purposes of this Note, Government Data is the same as PSI, while Open Government Data (OGD)
means the publication of PSI in
open raw formats and ways that make it accessible and readily available to all
and allow reuse, such as the creation of data mashups (mashups defined as
merging data from two or more different applications or data sources and
producing comparative views of the combined information).

Although there are several
definitions of Open Government Data [OGD-DEFS], a
set of open government data
principles [OGD-PRINCIPLES] developed by a
group of Open Government Data advocates includes: Open [government] data promotes
increased civil discourse, improved public welfare, and a more efficient use of
public resources; in order to publish Open Government Data, there are three
fundamental steps that need to be taken from a high level perspective: identify the data that one
controls, represent that data in a way that people can use, and expose the data
to the wider world. [JEN-OGD]

Nonetheless, some of the examples and use cases discuss about specific data
sets that could be of interest with the intention of giving some hints on how
the return on investment of those policies can be improved when publishing Open
Government Data.

What Public Policy Outcomes are Related to Open Government
Data?

Inclusion: providing data in
open standard and accessibility
supported formats allows anyone to use numerous software tools to adapt
it to personal needs. For example, an XML [XML]
dataset or RSS [RSS]
feed could be transformed and properly available to various devices,
including assistive
technologies used by people with disabilities.

Transparency: open and
unobtrusive PSI increases
transparency; interested parties can use PSI in the most appropriate way to
achieve their purpose, getting a better picture of the government's work
and customize it for their particular needs.

Accountability: the
appropriate open datasets properly mashed up can provide several views on
information about the performance of the government to achieve its public
policy goals.

What Are the Main Benefits of Publishing Open Government
Data?

The great majority of PSI on
the Web is still mainly found in two shapes:

Proprietary formats, requiring the potential consumer to have
proprietary software or tools to access it.

Open and standard human readable formats. While enabling access
to people, mixing of content, presentation and purpose limits its use by
machines.

Taking this last scenario into account when designing a data publication
strategy, some potential benefits of publishing Open Government Data are
described below.

Multiple views, not just one

When government information is made available through portals, e.g. the so
called one-stop shops, the government intends to build the consumer's view in
order to provide the information in the most usable way. Even when the PSI is
provided by means of an API, the methods to access it are often restricting the
view that a given consumer can have or need of that information.

Providing Open Government Data allows the consumer to use the information in
the most appropriate way to achieve the intended goal. Some authors argue that
it would
be preferable for government to understand providing reusable data, rather than
providing Web sites, as the core of its online publishing responsibility.
[GOV-INV].

Reuse

Open information boosts everyone’s ability to reuse the information,
including:

Other public sector organizations, which may use someone
else’s information to provide added value by mixing and combining their
own information with other sources using Web technologies, thus increasing
data usability, visibility and value.

Other non-public organizations (NGOs, private companies,
social Web communities, etc.) that may create pure-Web, standards-based
applications that combine different datasets (mashups). For instance,
someone can create a layer on top of a Geospatial map showing data derived
from several sources of information.

When the information is made available through the Web using the appropriate
open standards it can be used again and again in new, unanticipated and
imaginative ways that can greatly enhance the value of the data by its reuse
and combination with increased automation and enhanced interoperability. As the
Many Minds
Principle [MANY-MINDS] reads: the coolest thing to
do with your data will be thought of by someone else.

Improved Web Search

Some systems are still preventing the consumer to find the needed
information, even when it's already publicly available, e.g. is not being
indexed by search engines. There is a need to improve Web search. The use of
tools such as the sitemap
protocol [SITEMAP] (an XML open format, too), show that
governments are trying to improve the discoverability of information. The
Library of Congress in 2006, partnered with Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google on the
development, testing, and piloting of open sitemaps. The initiative focused on
exposing and making discoverable hundreds of thousands of items in the American Memory [US-LOCMEM] repository resulting in successful indexing
and exposure increasing Web traffic to the targeted materials by 25 percent.
Making PSI available in open
formats can even greater help consumers to find the information they need.

Data Integration

Governments provide information using open standards that empower other
agencies and third parties to further mix, enhance and share this information,
bringing vast improvement of data integration between disparate systems and
flourishing of new services.

How Can Open Government Data Be Achieved?

It has always been possible to publish data on the web, just as it's
possible to publish any type of file. A database dump or zipped packages for
bulk data download is one approach for publishing government data, albeit a
crude method. The focus here is on Web centric methods for open government
data.

Publishing (X)HTML

Even when the data is found on the Web in hard-to-reuse formats, third
parties are finding their way through it. One common practice is that of
screen scraping, in which tools [TOOLS-SCRAP] are used to separate and extract the data
from the HTML code. This data is
then transformed into a more automatic reusable format, usually XML or RDF, and then mashed up with
other sources. Coding and maintenance is costly, requires great work on the
side of the consumer. Usefulness of the existing applications (some
examples [GOV-MASH]) is high. This shows the
potential that providing easier access to the information in a reusable open
format has.

Ensuring Accessibility

Adherence to Web standards allows an array of various devices, including
assistive technologies, to effectively access Web content. eGovernment
initiatives must not only be required to conform to the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [WCAG20], from W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) [WAI], but must validate conformance and maintain the standard
over time. Only in that way can government maintained Web content and
applications ensure access by all citizens. In addition, government bodies must
be given the training and understanding to develop partnership and purchasing
requirements that reflect the need for partners and vendors to conform as well.
Harmonization with W3C's international standards for Web accessibility has
emerged as an important issue, since fragmentation into divergent standards
slows the development of supporting authoring and evaluation tools.

Providing APIs

There are already cases in which the government is providing access to
information through APIs. In most of the cases,
this means that the consumer has access to the data only in the way the
producer thinks it should be accessed, e.g. through certain methods, but the
consumer does not have access to the raw data or a holistic view of it. APIs are usually provided in
Javascript or similar languages to integrate in Web pages and applications and
in some cases provide access to an XML view of some parts or the whole
dataset.

RSS/Atom
information

Many pieces of information provided by governments are suitable for
distribution as news feeds using RSS [RSS] or Atom [ATOM-SYND] that are supported by a great number of tools
including built-in support in most modern Web browsers. In this scenario,
people subscribe to a set of channels and get the information about e.g.
government news, job openings, grants or acquisitions.

One of the core benefits for this approach is update notifications - when a
piece of information is added or modified, subscribers can easily get to know
this. Information consumers only need a news feeds reader, which they use to
subscribe and read the information.

REST
interfaces

REST [REST] provides an architecture to create Web applications,
using standards like HTTP and
XML. Basically, a
"resource" is associated to a URI that can be used to access or
modify its information following certain design
principles [REST-PRI]. Under this paradigm, a Web
site can publish a set of URLs
that provide a real programmer's API that 3rd parties can use
to build applications that extend the site's capabilities - perhaps by mixing
several different sites. This model is highly suitable for the development of
mashup applications and can also provide data in open raw formats as the
following example shows.

Semantic Web Technologies

Semantic Web technologies can provide a huge development in the way the
Internet is thought and used. Take for instance, the process of booking a
flight with current technologies:

access a search engine to locate a couple of online travel agencies

access some of them using a Web browser, and using their HTML Web interfaces, gain access
to the information

compare the results

book the flight

If all the information could be stored in a single relational database, the
task could be automated with a series of SQL queries. However, given the
distributed nature of the Internet, this kind of automatization is not directly
possible with current technologies. Semantic Web technologies could provide a
means of implementing such a solution in the Internet space.

The Semantic Web provides a common
framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application,
enterprise, and community boundaries [SW-ACT] and
there are several technologies
[SW-FAQ] that allow to describe, model and query these
data.

On the left, what browsers see. On the right, what humans see. Can we
bridge the gap so browsers see more of what we see?

An example is the London
Gazette [UK-LONGAZ1], the UK Government's
Official Journal and Newspaper of Record where proposals and decisions of
public bodies, e.g. to establish a new tax or to give permission to a company
to build a factory, have been published since 1665. SemWebbing
the London Gazette [UK-LONGAZ2] shows how
increasing semantics is challenging but can lead to important benefits.

The DBPedia project is an example of how a
given Web site can be prepared for this kind of applications, using:

DBPedia is one of the largest datasets in the Linked Open Data
[LOD] community effort which shows how powerful mashups of
datasets exposed using Semantic Web technologies can be.

Governments would need to publish the required interfaces so third parties
could query their information in distributed Web applications. This could
provide huge benefits:

Publishing a static document on a portal provides a unique and
challenging effort for automation, where Semantic Web constructs would
indeed provide a high degree of automation easily.

While current technologies (Web Services, REST, etc.) provide such
automation, public administrations need to create some set of queries and
offer them as an API. This provides value,
but requires design - and the decision on which queries are supported (and
which not). It is impossible to foresee all the scenarios of data usage, so
usage is therefore limited.

Using a Semantic Web approach, public organizations would publish datasets
annotated with domain specific vocabularies and/or metadata (e.g. using a
common and generic service model to annotate public services) - and offer a
query interfaces for applications to access public information in a
non-predefined way. This would greatly boost the ability of third parties to
use and reuse the information provided by governments, in ways and applications
perhaps unforeseen (and unforeseeable) by them.

What Are the Main Issues with Publishing Open Government
Data?

Mission and Strategy

In general, government agencies have not seriously considered mashups on a
coordinated level yet. The agencies are challenged with exposing data from
applications or creating applications to display data. Resourcing of personnel
and funding have not allowed for a focus on providing Open Government Data. The
government agencies are also challenged in finding other agencies or
organizations where regulations or government policy (in addition to the lack
of resources) will allow the sharing/exchange of information which would lead
to a useful mashup.

For example, agencies have not rendered their mission, goal, and objective
statements in readily shareable format. Thus, it is more difficult than
necessary not only to create cross-agency mashups of the data contained in
agency strategic plans themselves but also to identify related objectives that
offer strategic opportunities for well-coordinated sharing of data supporting
those objectives.

A typical application mashup requires the use of APIs with data available via
XML, many agencies have not yet
considered the consistent or holistic use of XML across applications or data
repositories, not to mention other open formats like RDF. The age of systems varies
significantly and, at times, the proprietary nature of the systems and
applications offers further challenges with providing access to the data needed
for a mashup when it is often not within the mission of an agency to provide
sets of information from other agencies or different sources.

Provenance and Trust

Agencies are faced with having to ensure that the information and other data
that they provide remains the authoritative source of the information.
Providing access to data via XML or similar open formats to others
for display in mashups releases control and management of the data outside of
the responsible agency, which is a concern; the agency can no longer be sure
that the data has maintained its original nature and the final consumer cannot
be sure about where the data is coming from and if it's trustable or not.

Some issues may arise: on one hand the interpretations other could do of the
provided information without the proper context, on the other how to ensure
that the data carry its restrictions with it (e.g. original author, copyright,
license, etc.). If agencies are to proceed in adopting mashups within their
organizations and/or across the government and/or with third parties, best
practices, policies, and procedures will be needed to ensure the information
and data's authoritative nature is preserved when necessary.

Limitations of the Technology

Although some of the technologies and standards have been in use for many
years already, such as HTML from
the day the Web was invented or XML from 1998 here might be cases in
which when using one of the existing standards some issues may arise or some
ways in which the technology is intended to be used are not possible yet --
i.e. some gaps in the standards are found or some new features are required.
W3C has an open process [W3C-PROCESS] that allows anybody to comment and
participate on improving the standards; one of the eGov IG's goals is to act as
a mediator between governments and W3C, communicating to other W3C Groups those
needs in order to be taken into consideration and fulfilled as necessary, and
communicating to governments how to better use the existing standards for the
benefit of both governments and W3C and the Web community at large.

Capabilities

Governments have been using the Web even before it became a very popular
channel to publish public information. The Web is an ecosystem in constant
evolution and as such there are always new capabilities that need to be
acquired in order to use it to its full potential. Adequate resourcing and
training of those involved in the development of applications and services is
needed.

Interoperability

What is Interoperability?

Within the European
Interoperability Framework [EC-EIFV1],
Interoperability was defined as: the ability of
information and communication technology (ICT) systems and of the business
processes they support to exchange data and to enable the sharing of
information and knowledge. In the draft document as basis
for the EIF v2 [EC-EIFV2DRAFT] this definition
has been reworked into a more comprehensive one the ability of disparate
and diverse organizations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed
common objectives, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between
the organizations via the business processes they support, by means of the
exchange of data between their respective information and communication
technology (ICT) systems.

The delivery of eGovernment services typically involves the interaction
between actors, citizens, business and administrations, in a scenario of large
diversity, not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of how the
relationships and the processes are organized and of how the necessary data and
information are structured and handled. The following types of interaction
cover most of eGovernment services:

Direct interaction between citizens or business with Public
Administrations.

Interaction and exchange of data among Public Administrations (Local,
Regional, Central, Supra-National or International) and other organizations
(other public entities, public universities, etc...). It is common in
governmental processes that two or more public organizations share data
while delivering a given service.

The achievement of interoperability requires a global approach which should
take into account issues like types of interactions, dimensions of
interoperability (organizational, semantic, technical, in time), the
interoperability chain, standards, common infrastructures and services and
conditions for share, re-use and collaborate.

The Dimensions of Interoperability

Organizational Interoperability refers to the
collaboration between entities in the development, deployment and delivery
of eGovernment services, and to the interaction between services, and
supporting processes, including also agreements or similar formal
instruments about service levels, the use of common services, security or
other quality aspects.

Semantic Interoperability enables organizations to
process information from external or secondary sources in a meaningful
manner. The achievement of semantic interoperability may require supporting
instruments that serve for collaboration, sharing and re-use of information
artifacts also called semantic assets, like SEMIC.EU - The Semantic Interoperability
Centre Europe [EC-SEMIC].

Technical Interoperability refers to the interaction of
technological systems.

Interoperability in time refers to the interaction among
elements that correspond to various technological waves. It is particularly
relevant in relation to the preservation and access to information on
electronic media along the time.

The Interoperability Chain

Interoperability behaves like a chain when systems and services are deployed
across boundaries of entities or governments; there is a succession of
interconnected elements, in a rather dynamic way, through interfaces and with
projection to the interoperability dimensions. Interoperability may break at
the weakest point elements individually adequate are deficiently joined. The
delivery of complex services requires interoperability between all the links of
the chain, end to end, including back-office and front-office environments. The
interoperability chain might include basic links like infrastructures and
associated services; data models and data integration; systems and services
integration; and secure integrated multi-channel access; together with some
transversal aspects. An important aspect of interoperability is enabling
citizens who are using assistive technologies,
mobile devices, and older software and hardware.

The Role of Standards

Standards are applicable in the dimensions of interoperability, they are
used in common infrastructures and services, and they are used in certain links
of the interoperability chain. The use of open standards allows that the actors
providing and receiving eGovernment services may take part using their
preferred technological choices. Governments are taking into account open
standards in their policies and interoperability frameworks and in some cases
like The
Netherlands [NL-OSOSS] are developing coherent
strategies towards openness. In the United States, OMB Circular A-119 [US-OMB119] directs agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards in their procurement
and regulatory activities, except where inconsistent with law or otherwise
impractical.

Common Infrastructures and Services

Common infrastructures and services propagate interoperability producing
economies of scale and using synergies that stem from cooperative work in
similar areas of action and respecting the subsidiarity of the participating
entities in the provision of complex services. They offer integrating solutions
that ensure interoperability in the dominion of their implementation with the
rest of information consumers, putting the focus on the corresponding
interfaces. They facilitate the development of new services, as well as the
interoperability of the existing ones.

Share, Re-Use and Collaborate

The voice sharing is present in the interoperability definition
mentioned above; together with re-use, both of them are important for
interoperability. The terms share and re-use are connected,
for instance, with the corresponding policy in the European Union shaped in the
Action Plan on
Electronic Administration i2010 [EC-i2010]. The
openness approach benefits interoperability and it is a condition that favors
sharing and reusing. Putting in practice the sharing approach may require the
support of platforms like OSOR.eu - Open Source
Observatory and Repository [EC-OSOR] and the
application by governments of adequate licensing conditions, as in the case of
the EUPL [EUPL].

What Public Policy Outcomes are related to
interoperability.

Interoperability policies developed by governments generally address the
following goals:

Improve the cooperation of government services with the aim of delivering
better integrated services in a quicker and more flexible way.

Improve efficiency and effectiveness driving to the reduction of
costs.

Making life easier to the citizen by means of offering more choice and
reducing the administrative burden.

These outcomes provide benefits which are described in the following
paragraphs.

What Are the Main Benefits of Interoperability?

Interoperability offers many important benefits to governments, to business
and industry and to citizens. Within [EC-EIFV2DRAFT] there is a whole section on this
question which is helpful to identify in summary the main benefits:

Organizational coherence and
integration. Interoperability is a means towards more coherent and
integrated operation for the overall public administration domain. The
current stovepipe organization of public institutions prevents the
horizontal movement of information and allows only vertical flows according
to the bureaucratic paradigm (command-report). Cross-agency
interoperability makes the horizontal flow of information feasible and
allows better communication and coordination amongst separate agencies.

Coordination and cooperation. It
facilitates better coordination and cooperation of government
services enabling the development, aggregation, deployment and delivery of
complex services.

Technological choices. It facilitates
the creation of scenarios where actors participate in eGovernment services
using their preferred technological choices.

It contributes to the reduction of
administrative burden.

It contributes to the reduction of ICT
costs enabling a more efficient use of citizen's taxes because
interoperability facilitates the re-use of data, the speed-up of services
and supporting services development and deployment, the integration of
services and the flow of data.

It makes life easier for the
citizen since interoperability is the key for the delivery of citizen
centric services delivered through a multi-channel approach: reduces the
burden on the citizen to request and present documents from different
administrative services, speeds up decisions by government services
resulting in higher quality and added value from the citizen's perspective
and helping those with disabilities or the elderly with transportation or
communication constraints.

Increased multi-channel delivery. It facilitates the
deployment of multi-channel delivery of government services.

How Can Interoperability Be Achieved?

Interoperability is by its own nature a joint effort. Sharing information
requires sharing a set of common principles among all participants. The best
way to achieve interoperability is through standardization.

openly published (including availability of specifications and supporting
material);

available royalty free or at minimal cost, with other restrictions (such
as field of use and defensive suspension) offered on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms; and

approved through due process by rough consensus among participants.

The workload to select standards for eGovernment services may be
considerable and in fact all the governments that maintain lists of standards
for their interoperability frameworks are carrying out similar tasks. That's
why the IDABC Programme of the European Union started on the proposal of
Denmark the work to develop a Common Assessment Method
of Standards and Specification [EC-CAMSS]. This
method has been elaborated on the basis of commonalities of existing practices
in some European countries in relation to the assessment of standards for
interoperability frameworks with the aim to facilitate this task and share the
results. CAMSS identifies several criteria such as the ad equation of the
standard to the required function, its potential in terms of stability,
scalability and others, the degree of openness and the market conditions.

Open Source

Open Source does not imply the use of Open Standards or vice versa. Open
Source refers to licensing and development models. It is essential that
governments consider open standards in relation to considering either Open
Source or proprietary solutions.

Government Interoperability Frameworks

Though it is possible to start peer-to-peer data interchange programs,
greater value usually lies in multi-lateral solutions. This principle sets the
ground for the creation of a Government Interoperability Framework (GIF).

A GIF is an instrument shared by different Governmental Organizations that
provides a global approach to interoperability and which enables them to
interact with each other, share information and business processes and
cooperate for the delivery of eGovernment services. A GIF usually deals with
the following:

European Interoperability Framework.
Pursues the interoperability of services and systems between public
administrations and the public (citizens, businesses) at a pan-European level
[EC-EIFV1], [EC-EIFV2DRAFT].

What Are the Main Issues to Achieve
Interoperability?

Interoperability presents a series of issues that need to be taken into
account.

Standards

Standards is a rather complex issue which might require a longer discussion
outside the scope of this document.

There is a wide number of standardization bodies producing plenty of
technical specifications and the way they can be normatively referenced and
used by governments varies significantly. In Europe there is a distinction
between standards and technical specifications, being the
former the technical specifications approved by a recognized standardization
body according to the Directive
98/34/EC [EC-STDS]. [EC-EIFV2DRAFT] states that openness of standards
or technical specifications is important for public administrations because of
its relationship with interoperability, freedom and choice. In the United
States, OMB Circular A-119
[US-OMB119] directs agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards.

Although there is no single definition of open standard W3C technical specifications,
formally known as recommendations, are broadly known as open Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through
the creation of Web standards and guidelines. In order for the Web to reach its
full potential, the most fundamental Web technologies must be compatible with
one another and allow any hardware and software used to access the Web to work
together. W3C refers to this goal as Web interoperability. By
publishing open (non-proprietary), royalty-free standards for Web languages and
protocols, W3C seeks to avoid market fragmentation and thus Web
fragmentation [W3C-OVERVIEW].

Privacy

Legal frameworks usually establish privacy and data protection obligations
for governments and institutions that are entrusted with the administration of
public services and the exchange of information about citizen's and business.
The exchange of this kind of information requires conformity with the
applicable legal framework and security policies and requirements. Following
[EC-EIFV2DRAFT] citizens and business require a
sufficient level of guarantees regarding their privacy and that their
fundamental rights are preserved. From the information consumers perspective,
functions associated with security (identification, authentication,
authorization, integrity, non -repudiation, confidentiality, etc.) should have
a maximum level of transparency, involve a minimum of effort and provide the
proper level of security.

Security

Security, in close relation with privacy, is also a transversal question.
Being a quite difficult issue, it is important that required levels of security
are in place in the different areas: data access, communications, etc.
providing equivalent safeguards to non-interoperable scenarios.

Semantics

Semantic agreement in advance facilitates all exchanging parties to have a
common understanding of the meaning of the data exchanged. At the international
level, this can be a complex topic since some legal concepts may differ from
one country to the other. The final goal is to be able to interpret data
consistently across the different organizations and platforms involved in the
data exchange. Toward that end, it would be beneficial to publish on the Web in
readily sharable, referenceable format the names and definitions of elements
currently being used, regardless of the scope of agreement that has been
achieved.

Legal Aspects

Interoperability may require changes in current legislation, so this needs
to be addressed as well.

Cultural/Political Aspects

In general and historically, public agencies have developed a culture that
does not promote cross-agency sharing. In many cases, agencies are reluctant to
change existing processes, open data and services to external parties, and
re-negotiate their way of operation with external parties. Who owns and
controls the data or sharing service is not visible in the new sharing
environment until after the execution of an interoperability project linking
together two or more agencies.

Multi-Channel Delivery

What is Multi-Channel Delivery?

Channels are different means used by service providers to interact with and
deliver services to their information consumers. Multi-channel service delivery
is the provision of services through different networks, terminal devices or
platforms and interfaces, in an integrated and coordinated way, with comparable
levels of usability.

Governments, like other sectors, also interact with citizens through
different channels, from the traditional ones such as the counter or
face-to-face and postal delivery to the electronic channels such as Internet
Web sites, e-mail, SMS-messaging,
fixed phone, mobile phone, interactive voice response systems, digital
television, fax, self-service terminals (ATMs), etc. Governments also have
challenges in relation to the elimination of barriers in the access to their
services and in relation to the provision of choices about how to access their
information and services.

Mobile devices, digital TV and others are
opening new ways of interaction between citizens and governments, so that
electronic services are no longer limited to the PC. This is possible thanks to the
evolution of terminal devices with better features in terms of processing
capacity, memory, power autonomy, screen size and quality, on one side and to
the improvement of networks, protocols and markup languages on the other
side.

Industry and citizens are getting used to these new electronic channels
taking advantage of their possibilities and of new services and there is an
expectation that governments may be able to do the same.

These new electronic channels require the adoption of new architectures and
systems that are able to provide maximum functionalities.

The Web is a main channel to access government services and it should be
possible to offer citizens these services through any device incorporating
Internet access. This would allow a significant increase in the usage of
government services by means of any kind of widespread channels such as PDA, Smartphone, WAP, WebTV, or even Bluetooth and
others; in this way the access to government services would really be anyhow,
anywhere, anytime through mobile devices.

Governments should take into account distribution, access options and
accessibility aspects to avoid creating new barriers which could limit the
amount of information or services provided. Consideration to socially
disadvantaged users [EC-MCEGOV], users without
high bandwidth and high cost devices, as well as devices, platforms and Web
sites with smaller audiences should be taken into account.

What Public Policy Outcomes are Related to
Multi-Channel Delivery?

Multi-channel policies developed by governments generally address the
following goals:

Facilitating e-Inclusion, avoiding digital divide and reaching
the disadvantaged citizens. For instance, the Lisbon
Ministerial Declaration [EU-LISBON] refers to
multi-channel delivery in relation to inclusive eGovernment. Also, the ICT
PSP work programme 2009 [EC-CIP]
focus the multi-channel service delivery to the socially disadvantaged and
opens this entry explaining that one third of the European population is
currently considered socially disadvantaged, most of it suffering from
multiple difficulties leading to social exclusion (economic, physical,
cultural, geographical factors etc.).

Making available eGovernment services and information to large
part of the population. This is especially interesting in
countries with low computer penetration as explained in the case of the Multi-Channel Citizen
Service Centers in Greece [GR-PAPA]. It has to
be taken into account the worldwide expansion of mobile networks and the
forecast that by the end of 2010 there may be four billion people in the
world with access to a mobile phone.

A closer government to the citizens, providing transparency and
openness and expanding citizen participation in public policy
decision making. The Obama administration's memo
on Transparency and Open Government [US-OBMEMO] emphasizes these questions. Also it is an
issue in the Lisbon Ministerial Declaration.

Re-use of governments' information: Governments produce,
collect and share vast amounts of information with high commercial
potential for re-use as the basis for new added value products and
services, such as e.g. car navigation systems, weather forecasts, insurance
and credit rating services and legal databases, as explained in the European
PSI Initiative [EU-PSI]. Following the same
source, a survey made in 2006 showed that the overall market size for
public sector information only in the EU is estimated at € 27 billion.
The EU adopted the PSI
Directive in 2003 [EU-PSID] to overcome barriers
that limit the re-use of government information; this Directive deals with
how public sector bodies should make their information available for
re-use, and with key issues like transparency of what is available and
under which conditions, fair competition and non-discrimination between all
potential re-users. The transposition of this Directive into national
legislations in the EU includes the promotion of the re-use through
multi-channel platforms as, for example, in the case of the national law of
Spain.

Multi-channel delivery of government services in support to the process
of combined service delivery across different
administrations, also referred in [EC-CIP].

Re-using data and applications independently from the
channel, reducing the costs of providing services, included in
policies oriented to efficiency, effectiveness and transparency.

What are the Main Benefits of Multi-Channel
Delivery?

Main benefits of multi-channel delivery may be both for the information
consumer and for the service provider:

An increase of flexibility in terms of anytime,
anywhere, anyhow and access options for the user.

An increase of the choice according to the information
consumer's preferences; access to the same information and services through
different channels.

Wider usage and impact of government services; a higher
population or user community reached by government services.

Cost savings along the delivery chain for the service
provider.

Quicker deployment of services through new or additional
channels which may provide easy, accurate and personalized content
delivery.

The study about
"Multi-Channel Delivery of Government Services" [EC-MCD] developed by the Program IDA of the European
Commission elaborates on how to develop a multi-channel strategy; this study
includes a list of possible channels with their main features, proposes a
channel selection framework and provides implementation guidelines of the
multi-channel strategy. This implementation may require a number of steps such
like the following:

Identify candidate services for multi-channel delivery.

Investigate whether the service can be divided into distinct steps. Given
one service, sometimes one specific channel can satisfy the full
transaction; in other cases the full transaction could take several steps
which might involve different channels. For instance, in order to renew the
citizen´s ID card in Spain an appointment can be made through a Web site,
the citizen may receive a confirmation with an SMS message through the
mobile and then the last step is made face to face in an office of the
administration.

Carry out research and segmentation of the target information consumer
community.

Analyze organizational changes including business processes, back end and
front end applications, staffing.

Analyze technical solutions.

Determine the channels to be implemented.

Quantification and evaluation. Statistics of access through the different
channels enabled.

Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web relationship: Web sites can
more efficiently meet both goals when developers understand the
significant overlap between making a Web site accessible for a mobile
device and for people with disabilities.

Device
Independence principles [DEVIND] set out
some principles that can be used when evaluating current solutions or
proposing new solutions, and can form the basis of more detailed
requirements and recommendations.

What are the Main Issues with Multi-Channel
Delivery?

General Requirements of the
Information Consumer and of the Provider

General requirements of the information consumer, as
pointed out in [EC-MCD]:
flexibility, access options, accessibility, usability (easy to use),
quality, security.
Some of them are especially relevant like security providing trust, and
simplicity so that the content may have a similar appearance from any
device, providing transparency from the point of view of the information
consumer.
Many people uses the mobile phone only for phone calls and are not aware of
the rest of possibilities of the device, because its operation may result
difficult for them. This inhibiting factor decreases the usage of the
offered services. For instance, trying to write an URL in a mobile may be a
difficult task because certain characters ("@", "/", "?", " &", ":",
…) are hard to find and the writing task is generally troublesome. The
information consumer usually has to remember a crowd of short numbers, key
words, URLs, while using impulsively a mobile device with low help
capabilities and requiring a quick answer to solve an specific problem.

General requirements of the service provider, as pointed
out in [EC-MCD]:
efficiency, effectiveness, security.

Limitation of Mobile Devices and
Adaptation of Information and Services Provided

Adaptation to the access to the Web through mobile
devices, which mayrequire, between others, the
reduction of download traffic and the processing consume, because of the
need to keep the battery, reduce the cost by traffic and the time response
perceived by the information consumer when used intensively or when
downloading contents.The ideal scenario is that introduction of new electronic channels
would be as non-intrusive as possible; for instance without having to
modify content managers used for the production of information for the
Web.
This may require the deployment of intermediate elements which adapt or
format the content taken out from the Web appropriately according to the
kind of device involved in the transaction.

Management of contents that cannot be showed in a mobile
device, have a large size very costly to download and memory
consuming.

Coordination and Integration of
Different Channels

Coordination and integration of different channels is
necessary to provide a focus on the user, a consistent approach to data and
databases available or shared by all channels and consistent look and
feel.

Access to eGovernment Services and
Information

In considering multi-channel access to eGovernment services and information,
providers must take into account:

Web for everyone: so that it may be available to all
people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native
language, culture, geographical location, or disability. It has to be
considered that services should be satisfactory according to the context
where they are used.

To effectively deploy multi-channel service delivery, providers must have
knowledge of the availability of different devices and bandwidth. Providers
must also understand the social preferences of target populations, their habits
of information consumption and accessibility requirements, including for people
with disabilities.

Interesting information may be about the proportion between mobile phones to
PCs or preferences of channel in relation to specific services. Depending on
how simple or complex is the service, the information consumer may prefer
making a phone call, browsing with the mobile, receiving or exchanging
information by e-mail or using a Web site with a computer.

Governments use different strategies to get this kind of information; for
instance, studying information consumer profiles, information consumer groups
and heuristics of navigation.

For instance, Directgov [UK-DIRECTGOV] in the United Kingdom is available
through its Web site, through any Internet enabled phone and through digital
TV; they have found that users of the Directgov TV service are more likely to
be older (63% over 35, 40% over 45, 17% over 55 respectively), the majority not
working (67%) and half (48%) rarely or never use the internet.

Other strategies include facilitating free Internet enabled computers at
libraries and kiosks or ATMs, widely available to citizens for free at public
locations; targeting the lower cost devices and the lower cost access;
providing some information in text form for mobile access; announcing
multi-media information and making it searchable through text based services so
that users who have limited access to multimedia enabled workstations can find
out about resources they need and go to a kiosk or library with access
available.

Conditions about the Reuse of Government
Information

Conditions about the reuse of government information by the
public, as explained in [US-GSATRAN].

Multi-Channel Distribution Standards
Standards, principles and best practices are needed to facilitate the
provision of multi-channel services and to satisfy requirements such as
efficiency, effectiveness, integration, quick response to policies,
priorities and social needs and the delivery of services that offer a
sustainable value to society.

Fair distributionFair distribution refers to the issue if government distributed
content through selected Web sites, platforms or devices creates an unfair
advantage for a particular device, platform, distribution network, or Web
site. This question has close connection with the re-use of government
information discussed above in this document.
It may be also interesting for governments and for the information
consumers of their services and information to consider, for instance
widely used instruments such as Web 2.0 services, as an additional channel
for distribution of multimedia information. Also they could consider the
use of social networks as a mean to increase interaction and citizen's
participation taking due care of privacy, reliability and accessibility
barriers they may present.
In relation to these questions, governments are considering and putting in
practice the idea of being present in main Web 2.0 services and similar
instruments and thus reaching large communities, instead of just remaining
outside and waiting for information consumers to come to their traditional
Web sites.

Multi-media central feedStrategies in relation to the distribution of multi-media
government content may include approaches to facilitate the access to
content provided through social media channels, in a searchable way, in
freely accessible, playable and downloadable formats, allowing tagging or
preserving hyperlinks.

Digital divide: as
explained by Wikipedia[DIG-DIV], it refers
to the gap between people with effective access to digital and information
technology and those with very limited or no access at all...It is the
unequal access by some members of society to information and communications
technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. This gap or
unequal access includes the imbalances in physical access to technology and
disability, as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to
effectively participate as a digital citizen. The digital divide may be
classified based on gender, income, disability and race groups, and by
locations.

Identification and Authentication

What is Identification and Authentication Technology?

Identification and authentication is the piece of any transaction that
allows the parties to have confidence with which they are dealing with and the
reliability in the preservation of the material and wording of the transaction.
Identifying the parties of any transaction is necessary to ensure that the
transaction is valid in the future. Usually legal liability is attached to
people and organizations that are identified in a transaction. And having a
method of authenticating the documentation of the transaction is also necessary
for any future verification of the details of the transaction, especially for
legal proceedings where authentication is required. Unlike other discussions of
technology, identification and authentication technology issues relate directly
to the legal arena.

The Transition of Identity from the Physical to
the Virtual.

Governments and citizens communicate using online methods increasingly and
for many purposes. And in the numerous types of these communications between
government and citizens there are varying needs or requirements for both
parties to identify themselves or authenticate the transaction which include:
privacy of the identity of the citizen, the transaction and the information
contained in the communication, the assurance to the citizen of the identity of
the government agent or body, the legal requirements that may bind a citizen
and government agency to the accuracy or agreement contained in a transaction,
and the reliance on outside parties the tools and implementation of identity
and authentication.

A major difficulty that must be overcome to advance online identification
and authentication is the lack of coherent analogies to the forms and protocols
that have endured for centuries in which face to face or physical
representations were the main methods of assuring identity and authentication.
Another Complicating the transition is the fear by both the government and the
citizen of losing control of identity which can have more profound and wide
ranging effects than were previously possible. On the other hand, the
advantages, adoption and efficiencies of electronic communication are pushing
societies to rapidly adapt to this new world.

The issue of how governments provide assurance of their own identity to the
citizen is also very different from the physical world. Where postal addresses
of government buildings are easily verifiable and how civil servants are
clearly identified by badges, the location of their office and other accepted
methods, on the Internet those identities are harder to prove and not easily
transformed from the physical manifestations. And in the age of Internet
subterfuge and phishing, governments struggle to recreate and synthesize an
Internet identity.

The Myth versus Reality of Physical Forms of Identity
and Authentication

In creating online analogies to how identity and authentication worked, it
helps to better understand the actual practices of authentication rather than
the many myths and assumptions. For example, signatures were not always
analogous to biometric forms of authentication and identity was more assumed
than verified with certain exceptions. On the other hand, the physicality of
identity and authentication made mass forgeries and identity theft less
prevalent and less impactful on the persons whose identity was being stolen.
And in the relative short time of the World Wide Web and mobile phones the
nature and social forms of identity are being created anew in ways that are far
beyond the understanding and capabilities of the world prior to 1991. And the
ability to both verify and falsify the nature of reality creates complications
in how to identify and authenticate in this new age. Imagine that a person
standing on a street in view of public Web cams using a pre-paid cell phone
with GPS, logging in remotely to a computer half way around the world to
communicate with a government agency housed three blocks away.

What Public Policy Outcomes are Related to Electronic
Identification and Authentication Technologies?

Efficiency: By moving from paper to electronic
transactions, both time and resources can be saved.

Availability: By allowing government services that
depend on identification and authentication, citizens will be able to
search online for those services.

Security of transactions: Technology offers many new
methods of making transactions more secure, although there are many counter
issues.

Legal and Financial Liability: Depending on how laws
related to identification and authentication are written and acted upon,
there will be some shifts in the nature of liability. Also, some
implementations of identity management will bring in mixed liability due to
third party involvement of software, vouching organizations and network
actors.

There are many types of online communication between citizen and government
that used to depend on a signature placed on a piece of paper in the presence
or not of witnesses. There were many less formal communications in which
identity was hidden or not important, because the citizen was only one of many
people expressing a viewpoint. And in others the physical presence of the
citizen was required even if the transaction was anonymous, as in many forms of
electoral procedures. In transforming those communications from physical to
virtual, the purposes behind the need for identity and authentication should be
of the highest consideration and the actual physical methods should not, except
where social practices outweigh any of the advantages of technology.

And, except in a small percentage of transactions that might have dangerous
or catastrophic implications at the point of the transaction, authentication
and identity on the public side of a transaction should be enhanced by:

providing privacy protection,

avoiding burdensome requirements or costs,

avoiding unnecessary levels of pre-authentication (where the transaction
if the first of a series of communications and/or where other off-line
forms of communications are used for authenticating),

avoiding forcing identity to be divulged when unnecessary or counter to
the purpose,

and avoiding the reliance on outside parties to supply authenticating
credentials as the sole means of authentication.

Personal identity verification is not the only aspect of identity in online
transactions: other characteristics and types of status will be wanted
including identification of jurisdiction (either in terms of the location of
the transaction or the residence), the status of residence or citizenship,
certifications (e.g. medical license), employment status, etc. Also the
relationship with certain organization may be conveyed, such as the chief
financial officer of a corporation would be the sole identified individual to
be allowed to sign certain documents.

What are the Main Benefits and Potential Drawbacks of
Citizens and Governments Use of Identification and Authentication
Technology?

Benefits include:

Substantial improvement in government service delivery based on more
efficient transactions and availability. With instantaneous transactions
that can take place from any location at any time, citizens have more
opportunities and flexibility in transacting business with their
government.

Saved resources as the cost of transactions can be much less for both the
citizen and governments.

Enhanced security for transactions when properly implemented.

Enhanced privacy for citizens when properly implemented.

Potential Drawbacks:

Cheaper and more likely for bad actors to try and interfere with
transactions. Phishing attempts flourish as the value of transactions
increase.

Decreased privacy if poorly implemented.

Increased liability for citizens depending on how laws are written
concerning online transactions, especially as there are third parties
involved in software or identity/authentication management that are made
necessary for transactions.

Identity and authentication allow for many types of online activities and
transactions. Identity is often used for gating and/or authorization, as in
only certain identified persons can have access to specific information or
software. Identity is also used as a social control method, for example to
avoid anonymity where the anonymity might lead to inappropriate dialogue.
Authentication is a primary means to ascertain the validity of a transaction
and the identity of the parties to the transaction, as in a legal document that
must be authenticated in case of a court case. And significantly, tracking the
identity of the sender or recipient of electronic disbursement of money for
auditing purposes.

The question of the role of third parties in the establishment of identity
for governments and citizens is a potential hazard. Governments now use third
parties to prove identity and authentication (the GPO of the US Government uses at the
time of writing a commercial firm to both provide identity and authentication
for some of its posted documents). Also, if individuals are pushed to use
software and identity provided by non-governmental entities, without guaranteed
protection for the individual against failure of the software or identity,
systems may lose the trust of the citizens.

How Can the Use of Identification and Authentication
Technology be Achieved?

Legal Dependencies

Governments may need to pass legislation that allows or provides the legal
permission for authentication. In the United States, the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act was enacted to provide the positive law to allow transactions
that previously only been allowed with paper and pen, especially when
identification and authentication were necessary for the transaction. Other
government entities have created laws to allow for electronic
authentication.

Technological Methods for Identification and
Authentication

Depending on the laws in a jurisdiction, either government or private
entities must create the technology that would adhere to the law. In some
cases, restrictive laws might necessitate using third parties to provide
assurance of identity and authenticity. Additionally, legal requirements might
shape what technology software or hardware is allowed.

Providing Citizens Tools to Identify
Themselves

Quite often citizens will have to obtain electronic identities before being
able to complete electronic transactions. Government would need to help create
an identity regime that would enable such transactions.

What are the Main Issues for Implementing Identity and
Authentication Technology?

Identification of the Citizen

Authentication technologies rely on the combination of several methods of
identification and authentication including:

assertion,

assumption,

what you know,

what you are,

what you have,

where you are,

what time it is,

who knows you,

quality and/or quantity of attempts,

and off-line response or vouching.

Often online identity is paired with membership or contractual relationships
in addition to be tied to certain technologies.

Fair Risk Allocation (essentially proved consumer protection so that
citizens or government takes on an undue burden).

Control. Don't assume that the government will own the methods of
control. Likewise it is important for the government to play a role in
identity based on a legal framework.

Accountability, which involves depending on auditors and the legal teams
to assign liability. Also involved is transparency of actors and
transactions.

W3C eGov IG's Interest in Identity and
Authentication

The group aspires to provide use cases where Web technology is used for
online identification and authentication by government and the public. There
are several standards already developed and in development by the W3C that are
and will be important in the use by government agencies. Governments may want
to use unique identifiers to include and use for storing and managing identity,
and the use of XML [XML] compliant strings such as URI/URLs [ADDRESSING].
As an example, this group has used OpenID [OpenID] URL's as a unique identifier for identity for access
to the group's wiki [EGOVIG-WIKI].

XML Schemas [XSD] allow for validating information that accompanies and
helps to verify identity or jurisdiction such as postal addresses. The W3C has
also established a standard for
forms [FORMS]; forms are the most common means by
which citizens can send information to government agencies. And the W3C is
working on methods to ensure the non-repudiation and authenticity of documents
through its work in the XML Security
Working Group [XML-SEC]. This group will endeavor to
welcome participation in acknowledging various technologies, while seeking to
help in finding methods to evaluate the quality and success.

5. Next Steps

The group aspires to keep this work going over the upcoming years. As is
demonstrated throughout this work, there are significant and challenging
questions and issues to address, technically and otherwise, along with
representative answers and solutions that would aid governments in achieving
the promise of eGovernment.

The world is changing rapidly as the Web continues to proliferate every
aspect and activity in society and its members. This rapid rate of change and
dynamism is further making the promise of electronic government more and more
challenging for governments to achieve. Today's Web is pushing interaction and
access boundaries, which have existed for a decade. Many governments were just
beginning to address the promises of eGovernment and now must adjust course to
address the new movement to openness, transparency, and interaction that is now
permeating every level and activity of government.

The desire for an open and transparent government is more than open
interaction and participation, appropriate data as products of the government
must be shared, discoverable, accessible, and able to be manipulated by those
desiring the data. The data as well must be linked via subject, relevance,
semantics, context, and more. Linked
Data [LOD] offers the information consumer ways and
means to find relevant and pertinent information through search, queries,
interfaces, or tools available today and for tomorrow. All appropriate data
must be searchable, accessible, and discoverable, the size of the Web grows
larger by the minute, hour, and day and it will grow more and more challenging
to locate and mine relevant information unless plans are laid in place which
follow appropriate standards and practices.

The needs of the Web and information consumers are being addressed today,
but how do we content with the future generations and how they will mine
historical and other government data? Governments must focus on long term data
management (repositories, archives, URIs and many other subjects
comprising the realm to ensure all needs of the information consumer are met,
not just those of today.

While data and archives grow increasingly important as the backbone of the
information Web, accessibility and availability must remain at the top of the
priority list. Without accessible interfaces and tools, what is saved,
discoverable, archived and managed wont be available for those that seek it.

In a Web environment, there is little or no connection to the original
source of data and information. Often the same data and information can be
discovered on a search but the results list a variety of sources. Not all
sources provide the same data with the most current updates. Some data
management functions are enabled by technology and standards, but technology
and standards do not guarantee validity, accuracy, completeness, assurance, and
authoritativeness of data. These characteristics of data and information
quality build trust with information consumers but current information quality
practices in many organizations are fragmented and assigned as auxiliary
duties. Part of the data quality problem is in the constant re-architecting of
data. Discovery and access to the original source of data may help alleviate
this challenge. Finally, while technology and standards have evolved to
facilitate search and discovery, search is not enough. The current search
results do not provide context. Metadata standards can facilitate the
understanding of the context of data and information discovered on a search to
determine relevancy for information consumers. One additional point to note
pertains to the preservation of data and records. Agencies across government do
not have a uniform repeatable process or language for consistency. Part of
authenticating data and sources is to understand how long data is retained, how
often it is refreshed, and how robust are the security constraints. Standard
metadata to identify date, steward, steward contact information, uniform
markings and controls such as laws, regulations, and policies may help address
this challenge.

Noting the dynamism and myriad challenges and issues noted, the eGov IG, in
up will try to continue to build and mature those subjects and resources found
throughout this issues paper with the aim and goal of ensuring governments have
the most recent information, tested and validated use cases, and continued
identification, examples, and solutions to the many non-technical challenges
confronting governments in achieving their electronic government goals.

As well the group will seek opportunities and venues to communicate and
share the findings and results of this document. Throughout the efforts, the
group will continue to identify partnerships and synergies, which will enable
the group to leverage well what is already available, in process, or identified
allowing the group to build on the work of the group and others ensuring the
products, advisories, and documents are useful and appropriate for the intended
audiences.

The group also aspires to keep participation open and transparent for all
who are interested in learning and contributing to the goals and efforts of the
group.

The editors also wish to thank the W3C/WAI Education and Outreach Working
Group (EOWG) and Judy Brewer for their helpful comments.

The eGov IG would also like to acknowledge the many people outside of the
Group who help with the process of developing this document and have supported
its work. These people are many to list individually, but are greatly
appreciated. This is truly a cooperative effort between the eGov IG, the rest
of the W3C, and the public, and benefits greatly from the pioneering work on
eGovernment in many countries and from public feedback.

Open
access to public sector information, Australian Government, 11
December 2008,
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/open_access.